politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What it takes to be a good leader

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What it takes to be a good leader

At one of his RoryforLeader rallies, Rory Stewart paid a heartfelt tribute to David Gauke and the three things he learnt about leadership from him. (1) Gauke communicated his values to his team, which they respected him for; (2) he genuinely listened to them and their arguments; and (3) finally, he had courage and was willing to make tough choices.

Read the full story here

tlg86

First like New Zealand on Sunday.

IanB2

Lol @ the photo

IanB2

How can we discourage this flood of right justified text?

Gallowgate

4th like Labour in a 2 horse race.

Endillion

IanB2 said:

How can we discourage this flood of right justified text?

We can at least counterbalance it with a much larger flood of left aligned test below it.

Excellent article, by the way. Thank you, @CycleFree.

Philip_Thompson

Interesting article but I would dispute one of your conclusions, your second one.

The issue not that people beleive the civil servants need to be politicised to believe in what the government is doing, it is that we believe the civil servants have already been politicised into believing the opposite of what the government is seeking to do and are thus not serving the country well already.

Unsurprisingly when the political orthodox for the last four decades has been that we need to be in the EU, those in positions of responsibility now are not unbiased wise and neutral mandarins. We have people implementing Brexit who believe it to be a disastrous mistake which goes against what they have been doing for the last four decades.

If the civil servants are unable to serve the country neutrally and actively oppose what the government is doing then they should recuse themselves.

williamglenn

From the ‘Alternative Arrangements Commission’:

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1149263323596304385?s=21

DavidL

So being a good leader means, err, not being the leader? Not completely sure about that.

Carrington was a gent and an exceptionally honourable man but he was never PM and there may be reasons for that.

I also think that the underlying principles of Ministerial responsibility are archaic and anachronistic. It reflected a time when governments made far fewer decision and those decisions were indeed made by Ministers. In the modern world many, many decisions are in fact made by civil servants and they should be held accountable for them. Many are also made by executive agencies with minimal Ministerial involvement.

Of course leaders should support their staff doing their jobs. But the example of Boris here shows the limitations of the principle. I don't think anyone, certainly not Boris, ever argued that Darroch did anything wrong. I don't think anyone, certainly not Boris suggested that the blame lay with anyone but the leaker who will hopefully go to jail. But Boris was being asked to confirm that a man who Trump would not speak to (or allow his administration to speak to) should continue as our Ambassador. Despite the irritation caused by Trump's rudeness, bullying and irrationality that would be a pretty strange call as Darroch himself recognised.

In short, and somewhat unusually, I almost totally disagree with @Cyclefree. Gulp.

Drutt

sees long wall of text
rolls eyes
scrolls to bottom
sees it's by Cyclefree
scrolls back up
reads every word
has made the right decision

Another top thread header. I think if Theresa May wants to cement any legacy at all it should be to pick the best damn ambassador she can find for the long-term US/UK relationship, regardless of any leave/remain standpoint, and get Darroch the posting of his choice.

Anyone get on my NZ CWC winners at 8/1 tip?

tlg86

An interesting article. As a civil servant of 10 years I'd suggest that senior civil servants are not without faults in this regard. With one notable exception, none of the SCS that I have encountered have particularly impressed me.

The culture of wanting promotion and leadership positions without wanting the responsibility that comes with it is just as prevalent in the CS as it is anywhere else in society.

Cyclefree

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting article but I would dispute one of your conclusions, your second one.

The issue not that people beleive the civil servants need to be politicised to believe in what the government is doing, it is that we believe the civil servants have already been politicised into believing the opposite of what the government is seeking to do and are thus not serving the country well already.

Unsurprisingly when the political orthodox for the last four decades has been that we need to be in the EU, those in positions of responsibility now are not unbiased wise and neutral mandarins. We have people implementing Brexit who believe it to be a disastrous mistake which goes against what they have been doing for the last four decades.

If the civil servants are unable to serve the country neutrally and actively oppose what the government is doing then they should recuse themselves.

What is your evidence for the claim that civil servants are not serving their political masters?

You seem to be at risk of confusing those who point out practical difficulties, laws etc - which is precisely what advisors should do - with active opposition. The two are not the same and yet we have far too many on the pro-No Deal Brexit side insisting that belief in a policy is all that is needed. And today Farage was suggesting a purge of those who don’t agree with such a policy.

It is not belief which is needed but practical solutions which work. As well as an understanding of all the levant laws and regulations. Far too many No Deal Brexiteers show very little understanding of these and then rail against the advisors who point out inconvenient facts.

DavidL

tlg86 said:

An interesting article. As a civil servant of 10 years I'd suggest that senior civil servants are not without faults in this regard. With one notable exception, none of the SCS that I have encountered have particularly impressed me.

The culture of wanting promotion and leadership positions without wanting the responsibility that comes with it is just as prevalent in the CS as it is anywhere else in society.

Exactly. Take the example of Sharon Shoesmith. It would be appalling if she had not been held responsible for the incompetence, disorganisation and neglect of a department that she was responsible for. Balls was criticised for sacking her and it was found to have been done unprocedurally. But he was right. Absolutely right.

Gallowgate

In a vaguely betting related post: the atmosphere around Newcastle United has become so unbelievably toxic that I think betting on us to be relegated this season is basically free money. The absolute state of the club.

Barnesian

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting article but I would dispute one of your conclusions, your second one.

The issue not that people beleive the civil servants need to be politicised to believe in what the government is doing, it is that we believe the civil servants have already been politicised into believing the opposite of what the government is seeking to do and are thus not serving the country well already.

Unsurprisingly when the political orthodox for the last four decades has been that we need to be in the EU, those in positions of responsibility now are not unbiased wise and neutral mandarins. We have people implementing Brexit who believe it to be a disastrous mistake which goes against what they have been doing for the last four decades.

If the civil servants are unable to serve the country neutrally and actively oppose what the government is doing then they should recuse themselves.

What is your evidence for the claim that civil servants are not serving their political masters?

You seem to be at risk of confusing those who point out practical difficulties, laws etc - which is precisely what advisors should do - with active opposition. The two are not the same and yet we have far too many on the pro-No Deal Brexit side insisting that belief in a policy is all that is needed. And today Farage was suggesting a purge of those who don’t agree with such a policy.

It is not belief which is needed but practical solutions which work. As well as an understanding of all the levant laws and regulations. Far too many No Deal Brexiteers show very little understanding of these and then rail against the advisors who point out inconvenient facts.

Quite. Excellent article by the way. Well worth reading by all aspiring leaders.

Philip_Thompson

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting article but I would dispute one of your conclusions, your second one.

The issue not that people beleive the civil servants need to be politicised to believe in what the government is doing, it is that we believe the civil servants have already been politicised into believing the opposite of what the government is seeking to do and are thus not serving the country well already.

Unsurprisingly when the political orthodox for the last four decades has been that we need to be in the EU, those in positions of responsibility now are not unbiased wise and neutral mandarins. We have people implementing Brexit who believe it to be a disastrous mistake which goes against what they have been doing for the last four decades.

If the civil servants are unable to serve the country neutrally and actively oppose what the government is doing then they should recuse themselves.

What is your evidence for the claim that civil servants are not serving their political masters?

You seem to be at risk of confusing those who point out practical difficulties, laws etc - which is precisely what advisors should do - with active opposition. The two are not the same and yet we have far too many on the pro-No Deal Brexit side insisting that belief in a policy is all that is needed. And today Farage was suggesting a purge of those who don’t agree with such a policy.

It is not belief which is needed but practical solutions which work. As well as an understanding of all the levant laws and regulations. Far too many No Deal Brexiteers show very little understanding of these and then rail against the advisors who point out inconvenient facts.

Well I take issue with the political masters too.

I think there is a very thin line between pointing out practical difficulties - which should be done - and opposing. And how you go about that shapes it. If you are just contrarian and pointing out difficulties I would say that is a negative. If you are pointing out difficulties but looking for solutions to them, then that is not.

I agree that practical solutions are needed. If people are seeking solutions then so much the better.

tlg86

Gallowgate said:

In a vaguely betting related post: the atmosphere around Newcastle United has become so unbelievably toxic that I think betting on us to be relegated this season is basically free money. The absolute state of the club.

Arsenal - 2000/1 to go down. Probably should be 200/1.

Cyclefree

DavidL said:

So being a good leader means, err, not being the leader? Not completely sure about that.

Carrington was a gent and an exceptionally honourable man but he was never PM and there may be reasons for that.

I also think that the underlying principles of Ministerial responsibility are archaic and anachronistic. It reflected a time when governments made far fewer decision and those decisions were indeed made by Ministers. In the modern world many, many decisions are in fact made by civil servants and they should be held accountable for them. Many are also made by executive agencies with minimal Ministerial involvement.

Of course leaders should support their staff doing their jobs. But the example of Boris here shows the limitations of the principle. I don't think anyone, certainly not Boris, ever argued that Darroch did anything wrong. I don't think anyone, certainly not Boris suggested that the blame lay with anyone but the leaker who will hopefully go to jail. But Boris was being asked to confirm that a man who Trump would not speak to (or allow his administration to speak to) should continue as our Ambassador. Despite the irritation caused by Trump's rudeness, bullying and irrationality that would be a pretty strange call as Darroch himself recognised.

In short, and somewhat unusually, I almost totally disagree with @Cyclefree. Gulp.

Your first sentence is bizarre since I don’t say that.

Re Darroch, what Boris should have done is support in public and stood up to Trump. If Trump wanted formally to declare the British Ambassador persona non grata, he should have been forced to do that not get his way through bitchy tweeting and his friends abroad hanging an honourable civil servant out to dry.

I disagree that Ministerial accountability is outdated and archaic. It is the political equivalent of Senior Manager responsibility in the world of finance. It does not absolve civil servants of their individual responsibilities. But those in positions of leadership need to take responsibility for what happens on their watch.

I see no evidence that Johnson understands this. IMO it is a severe failing in someone who wants to be a leader.

algarkirk

Excellent. Thank you. Right in almost every particular except that the penultimate paragraph could properly have read

"One policy, Remain, is seen as so important that virtually anything is acceptable to achieve it. That this undermines the outcome of a referendum the very same parliamentarians agreed to is seen as irrelevant".

The reason we are in this mess now is because a sane compromise was rejected by parliament. In the circumstances is it surprising that people are misguidedly tempted to treat it with contempt and that the door is opened to people less good and decent than Mrs May?

kjh

Drutt said:

sees long wall of text
rolls eyes
scrolls to bottom
sees it's by Cyclefree
scrolls back up
reads every word
has made the right decision

Another top thread header. I think if Theresa May wants to cement any legacy at all it should be to pick the best damn ambassador she can find for the long-term US/UK relationship, regardless of any leave/remain standpoint, and get Darroch the posting of his choice.

Anyone get on my NZ CWC winners at 8/1 tip?

Snap.

JackW

DavidL said:

So being a good leader means, err, not being the leader? Not completely sure about that.

Carrington was a gent and an exceptionally honourable man but he was never PM and there may be reasons for that.

I also think that the underlying principles of Ministerial responsibility are archaic and anachronistic. It reflected a time when governments made far fewer decision and those decisions were indeed made by Ministers. In the modern world many, many decisions are in fact made by civil servants and they should be held accountable for them. Many are also made by executive agencies with minimal Ministerial involvement.

Of course leaders should support their staff doing their jobs. But the example of Boris here shows the limitations of the principle. I don't think anyone, certainly not Boris, ever argued that Darroch did anything wrong. I don't think anyone, certainly not Boris suggested that the blame lay with anyone but the leaker who will hopefully go to jail. But Boris was being asked to confirm that a man who Trump would not speak to (or allow his administration to speak to) should continue as our Ambassador. Despite the irritation caused by Trump's rudeness, bullying and irrationality that would be a pretty strange call as Darroch himself recognised.

In short, and somewhat unusually, I almost totally disagree with @Cyclefree. Gulp.

Boris brown nosing of Trump was puke inducing. Boris's appeasement of Trump will be swallowed up and spat out at a moments notice by Trump. Bullies are only beaten when you stand up to them.

Boris has embarrassed our nation in completely undermining the Queen's Ambassador to the United States. When he has the honour to kiss hands with her Majesty he might start by apologizing to her for undermining her representative and his failure to stand up for her previous Prime Minister.

The correct position was to allow Darroch to remain in place until his retirement in a few months. Our "special relationship" with the US isn't that of politically fellating the President.

Gallowgate

algarkirk said:

Excellent. Thank you. Right in almost every particular except that the penultimate paragraph could properly have read

"One policy, Remain, is seen as so important that virtually anything is acceptable to achieve it. That this undermines the outcome of a referendum the very same parliamentarians agreed to is seen as irrelevant".

The reason we are in this mess now is because a sane compromise was rejected by parliament. In the circumstances is it surprising that people are misguidedly tempted to treat it with contempt and that the door is opened to people less good and decent than Mrs May?

I'm sorry but the WA was not a compromise. EFTA/EEA would have been the compromise.

noneoftheabove

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting article but I would dispute one of your conclusions, your second one.

The issue not that people beleive the civil servants need to be politicised to believe in what the government is doing, it is that we believe the civil servants have already been politicised into believing the opposite of what the government is seeking to do and are thus not serving the country well already.

Unsurprisingly when the political orthodox for the last four decades has been that we need to be in the EU, those in positions of responsibility now are not unbiased wise and neutral mandarins. We have people implementing Brexit who believe it to be a disastrous mistake which goes against what they have been doing for the last four decades.

If the civil servants are unable to serve the country neutrally and actively oppose what the government is doing then they should recuse themselves.

What is your evidence for the claim that civil servants are not serving their political masters?

You seem to be at risk of confusing those who point out practical difficulties, laws etc - which is precisely what advisors should do - with active opposition. The two are not the same and yet we have far too many on the pro-No Deal Brexit side insisting that belief in a policy is all that is needed. And today Farage was suggesting a purge of those who don’t agree with such a policy.

It is not belief which is needed but practical solutions which work. As well as an understanding of all the levant laws and regulations. Far too many No Deal Brexiteers show very little understanding of these and then rail against the advisors who point out inconvenient facts.

Well I take issue with the political masters too.

I think there is a very thin line between pointing out practical difficulties - which should be done - and opposing. And how you go about that shapes it. If you are just contrarian and pointing out difficulties I would say that is a negative. If you are pointing out difficulties but looking for solutions to them, then that is not.

I agree that practical solutions are needed. If people are seeking solutions then so much the better.

The politicians have been given the solutions and related choices that are available but are unwilling to choose. That is neither the fault of civil servants nor the EU but the inability of the leave coalition to come together. Statist Corbynite Brexit, Singapore on Thames or global free trade Britain? Trade and jobs a priority or the union?

If the politicians want everything like a toddler that is their own fault. If they want everything as that is what they promised in order to gain power without a clue how to deliver it, that is their own fault.

algarkirk

Gallowgate said:

algarkirk said:

Excellent. Thank you. Right in almost every particular except that the penultimate paragraph could properly have read

"One policy, Remain, is seen as so important that virtually anything is acceptable to achieve it. That this undermines the outcome of a referendum the very same parliamentarians agreed to is seen as irrelevant".

The reason we are in this mess now is because a sane compromise was rejected by parliament. In the circumstances is it surprising that people are misguidedly tempted to treat it with contempt and that the door is opened to people less good and decent than Mrs May?

I'm sorry but the WA was not a compromise. EFTA/EEA would have been the compromise.

They are both compromises. I wish both were on the table right now.

Cyclefree

algarkirk said:

Excellent. Thank you. Right in almost every particular except that the penultimate paragraph could properly have read

"One policy, Remain, is seen as so important that virtually anything is acceptable to achieve it. That this undermines the outcome of a referendum the very same parliamentarians agreed to is seen as irrelevant".

The reason we are in this mess now is because a sane compromise was rejected by parliament. In the circumstances is it surprising that people are misguidedly tempted to treat it with contempt and that the door is opened to people less good and decent than Mrs May?

Some politicians are seeking to stop a No Deal exit. Who is carrying out Parliamentary manoeuvres to force Britain to Remain?

matt

Gallowgate said:

In a vaguely betting related post: the atmosphere around Newcastle United has become so unbelievably toxic that I think betting on us to be relegated this season is basically free money. The absolute state of the club.

There are worse groups of players, although perhaps not worse teams. 2/3 of those promoted, for example. For all their failings, Newcastle is not Sunderland. That Netflix documentary on Sunderland was spectacular.

TheScreamingEagles

Gallowgate said:

In a vaguely betting related post: the atmosphere around Newcastle United has become so unbelievably toxic that I think betting on us to be relegated this season is basically free money. The absolute state of the club.

Epic trolling by Mike Ashley to offer the Newcastle job to Sam Allardyce.

Cyclefree

DavidL said:

tlg86 said:

An interesting article. As a civil servant of 10 years I'd suggest that senior civil servants are not without faults in this regard. With one notable exception, none of the SCS that I have encountered have particularly impressed me.

The culture of wanting promotion and leadership positions without wanting the responsibility that comes with it is just as prevalent in the CS as it is anywhere else in society.

Exactly. Take the example of Sharon Shoesmith. It would be appalling if she had not been held responsible for the incompetence, disorganisation and neglect of a department that she was responsible for. Balls was criticised for sacking her and it was found to have been done unprocedurally. But he was right. Absolutely right.

No. It was right that she be disciplined. It was not right that Balls fucked up the decision in order to gain some flattering headlines and cost taxpayers money.

Gallowgate

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

In a vaguely betting related post: the atmosphere around Newcastle United has become so unbelievably toxic that I think betting on us to be relegated this season is basically free money. The absolute state of the club.

Epic trolling by Mike Ashley to offer the Newcastle job to Sam Allardyce.

I'm so triggered.

Cyclefree

tlg86 said:

An interesting article. As a civil servant of 10 years I'd suggest that senior civil servants are not without faults in this regard. With one notable exception, none of the SCS that I have encountered have particularly impressed me.

The culture of wanting promotion and leadership positions without wanting the responsibility that comes with it is just as prevalent in the CS as it is anywhere else in society.

My comments on leadership apply just as much to civil servants, to anyone in a position of leadership. But it is political leadership we are lacking now.

stodge

Evening all

For me, there's a wider and deeper issue. The primary duty of the Government of any day (and the civil service which implements policy) should be the welfare of the nation and ensuring the people are kept as safe and secure as possible and things like the administration of law and distribution of food happen as they should.

The problem comes when there is incontrovertible and irrefutable evidence that particular policies, even if endorsed by the democratic will of the country, will adversely affect the country. Is it therefore the Government or the civil service's duty to protect us from ourselves or is the democratic will supreme in all instances even if the result of that is or would be detrimental to large sections of the populace?

As a civil servant, is your primary duty to serve the Government of the day whatever the consequences or is there a deeper duty to ensure the overall safety of the country and its citizens and to therefore seek to frustrate or mitigate Government policy, even if that is endorsed by the will of the people, where said policy is clearly disadvantageous to the country and its people?

tlg86

Cyclefree said:

tlg86 said:

An interesting article. As a civil servant of 10 years I'd suggest that senior civil servants are not without faults in this regard. With one notable exception, none of the SCS that I have encountered have particularly impressed me.

The culture of wanting promotion and leadership positions without wanting the responsibility that comes with it is just as prevalent in the CS as it is anywhere else in society.

My comments on leadership apply just as much to civil servants, to anyone in a position of leadership. But it is political leadership we are lacking now.

When do you think the rot set in? I'd say 28 November 1990.

Charles

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

tlg86 said:

An interesting article. As a civil servant of 10 years I'd suggest that senior civil servants are not without faults in this regard. With one notable exception, none of the SCS that I have encountered have particularly impressed me.

The culture of wanting promotion and leadership positions without wanting the responsibility that comes with it is just as prevalent in the CS as it is anywhere else in society.

Exactly. Take the example of Sharon Shoesmith. It would be appalling if she had not been held responsible for the incompetence, disorganisation and neglect of a department that she was responsible for. Balls was criticised for sacking her and it was found to have been done unprocedurally. But he was right. Absolutely right.

No. It was right that she be disciplined. It was not right that Balls fucked up the decision in order to gain some flattering headlines and cost taxpayers money.

It was an early sign of the problem of the news cycle

Proper HR procedure takes time. The media doesn’t like that

(IIRC Balls was found to have prejudiced the results of the internal inquiry.)

Perhaps his only option could have been to suspend her during the inquiry rather than asking for her resignation?

ralphmalph

What I think should have happened is that the PM the FS our Ambassador to the USA and the senior civil servants got together and worked out a plan on how to handle the situation that meant the UK could save face and the Trump save face.

Then the person who has the hot line to Trump, the PM get on the phone to him and sort the deal out.

I still wonder why the PM, FS and the senior civil servant at the Foreign Office allowed Darroch to resign, they gave Trump the win.

rottenborough

Twitter having problems tonight.

rottenborough

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/twitter-down-not-working-outage-why-problem-website-app-issues-a9001496.html

Cyclefree

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

tlg86 said:

An interesting article. As a civil servant of 10 years I'd suggest that senior civil servants are not without faults in this regard. With one notable exception, none of the SCS that I have encountered have particularly impressed me.

The culture of wanting promotion and leadership positions without wanting the responsibility that comes with it is just as prevalent in the CS as it is anywhere else in society.

Exactly. Take the example of Sharon Shoesmith. It would be appalling if she had not been held responsible for the incompetence, disorganisation and neglect of a department that she was responsible for. Balls was criticised for sacking her and it was found to have been done unprocedurally. But he was right. Absolutely right.

No. It was right that she be disciplined. It was not right that Balls fucked up the decision in order to gain some flattering headlines and cost taxpayers money.

It was an early sign of the problem of the news cycle

Proper HR procedure takes time. The media doesn’t like that

(IIRC Balls was found to have prejudiced the results of the internal inquiry.)

Perhaps his only option could have been to suspend her during the inquiry rather than asking for her resignation?

He should have left it to those in charge of the internal inquiry and the HR process. They could certainly have considered suspension while the matter was being investigated.

And he should have had the courage to say that a proper and thorough process would be gone through.

Too many politicians are far too vain and lack courage. It is an unappealing mixture.

I have been in the position of the investigator of something messy when the CEO wants an instantaneous decision. You have to be fearless in standing up for both a proper investigative and disciplinary process. Otherwise you end up with the sort of expensive mess Balls made of the Shoosmith case.

tlg86

rottenborough said:

Twitter having problems tonight.

Oh dear, what will Donald take his anger out on now? Keep those nuclear codes away from him.

rottenborough

tlg86 said:

rottenborough said:

Twitter having problems tonight.

Oh dear, what will Donald take his anger out on now? Keep those nuclear codes away from him.

How long before the Cult are blaming Israel? Tonight is the support Jezza twitter storm event organized by his mad outriders e.g. Swindon

AndyJS

rottenborough said:

Twitter having problems tonight.

That's funny: a couple of days ago I said it ought to be closed down for a while.

algarkirk

Cyclefree said:

algarkirk said:

Excellent. Thank you. Right in almost every particular except that the penultimate paragraph could properly have read

"One policy, Remain, is seen as so important that virtually anything is acceptable to achieve it. That this undermines the outcome of a referendum the very same parliamentarians agreed to is seen as irrelevant".

The reason we are in this mess now is because a sane compromise was rejected by parliament. In the circumstances is it surprising that people are misguidedly tempted to treat it with contempt and that the door is opened to people less good and decent than Mrs May?

Some politicians are seeking to stop a No Deal exit. Who is carrying out Parliamentary manoeuvres to force Britain to Remain?

Either a large minority or a thin majority of all MPs. If TMs deal is excluded (three times now) and No Deal is excluded then what remains on the table except Revoke and Remain? Only a pious hope of a deal from thin air. Draw your own conclusions. It is fairly obvious what is the policy of most almost all non-Tory MPs - a long term strategy to Remain. Ultimately I think it will be successful.

Incidentally I am not criticising your article. It was outstanding and interesting.

rottenborough

AndyJS said:

rottenborough said:

Twitter having problems tonight.

That's funny: a couple of days ago I said it ought to be closed down for a while.

Indeed you did.

Coincidence?

Nigelb

DavidL said:

tlg86 said:

An interesting article. As a civil servant of 10 years I'd suggest that senior civil servants are not without faults in this regard. With one notable exception, none of the SCS that I have encountered have particularly impressed me.

The culture of wanting promotion and leadership positions without wanting the responsibility that comes with it is just as prevalent in the CS as it is anywhere else in society.

Exactly. Take the example of Sharon Shoesmith. It would be appalling if she had not been held responsible for the incompetence, disorganisation and neglect of a department that she was responsible for. Balls was criticised for sacking her and it was found to have been done unprocedurally. But he was right. Absolutely right.

And you base that certainty on what ?

Cyclefree

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

algarkirk said:

Excellent. Thank you. Right in almost every particular except that the penultimate paragraph could properly have read

"One policy, Remain, is seen as so important that virtually anything is acceptable to achieve it. That this undermines the outcome of a referendum the very same parliamentarians agreed to is seen as irrelevant".

The reason we are in this mess now is because a sane compromise was rejected by parliament. In the circumstances is it surprising that people are misguidedly tempted to treat it with contempt and that the door is opened to people less good and decent than Mrs May?

Some politicians are seeking to stop a No Deal exit. Who is carrying out Parliamentary manoeuvres to force Britain to Remain?

Either a large minority or a thin majority of all MPs. If TMs deal is excluded (three times now) and No Deal is excluded then what remains on the table except Revoke and Remain? Only a pious hope of a deal from thin air. Draw your own conclusions. It is fairly obvious what is the policy of most almost all non-Tory MPs - a long term strategy to Remain. Ultimately I think it will be successful.

Incidentally I am not criticising your article. It was outstanding and interesting.

Thank you.

I would prefer to Remain. But, given the vote, departing with a sensible transitional deal and moving thereafter to a long-term deal is OK, if not my personal preference.

What I am adamantly opposed to is a No Deal exit. So if an extension for time to reach such a new deal is not on offer or asked for, then maybe we do need to press the Pause button while we work out what the hell our strategy is. Or we go back to voters and ask them to choose between No Deal and Remain or whatever fresh deal is agreed.

I have no confidence in our political class so expect / fear a crash-out Brexit and the consequences when voters find that they have been sold a pig in a poke.

rottenborough

AndyJS said:

rottenborough said:

Twitter having problems tonight.

That's funny: a couple of days ago I said it ought to be closed down for a while.

"Maybe it's for the best. Perhaps the world could do with a little Twitter break to calm down, get some perspective, take a deep breath, breathe out slowly, and enjoy the digital silence."

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/07/11/twitter_down_outage/

Barnesian

rottenborough said:

AndyJS said:

rottenborough said:

Twitter having problems tonight.

That's funny: a couple of days ago I said it ought to be closed down for a while.

Indeed you did.

Coincidence?

I wonder who has turned Twitter off? If it has been arranged by the folk around Trump to prevent him creating a calamity, it would have been easier to have hidden his phone.

Sunil_Prasannan

PB is my Twitter

Sunil_Prasannan

Cyclefree said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

algarkirk said:

Excellent. Thank you. Right in almost every particular except that the penultimate paragraph could properly have read

"One policy, Remain, is seen as so important that virtually anything is acceptable to achieve it. That this undermines the outcome of a referendum the very same parliamentarians agreed to is seen as irrelevant".

The reason we are in this mess now is because a sane compromise was rejected by parliament. In the circumstances is it surprising that people are misguidedly tempted to treat it with contempt and that the door is opened to people less good and decent than Mrs May?

Some politicians are seeking to stop a No Deal exit. Who is carrying out Parliamentary manoeuvres to force Britain to Remain?

Either a large minority or a thin majority of all MPs. If TMs deal is excluded (three times now) and No Deal is excluded then what remains on the table except Revoke and Remain? Only a pious hope of a deal from thin air. Draw your own conclusions. It is fairly obvious what is the policy of most almost all non-Tory MPs - a long term strategy to Remain. Ultimately I think it will be successful.

Incidentally I am not criticising your article. It was outstanding and interesting.

Thank you.

I would prefer to Remain. But, given the vote, departing with a sensible transitional deal and moving thereafter to a long-term deal is OK, if not my personal preference.

What I am adamantly opposed to is a No Deal exit. So if an extension for time to reach such a new deal is not on offer or asked for, then maybe we do need to press the Pause button while we work out what the hell our strategy is. Or we go back to voters and ask them to choose between No Deal and Remain or whatever fresh deal is agreed.

I have no confidence in our political class so expect / fear a crash-out Brexit and the consequences when voters find that they have been sold a pig in a poke.

Comprare a scatola chiusa.

Nigelb

You are a better person, and better writer than most of us here, Cyclefree.

Philip_Thompson

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

So being a good leader means, err, not being the leader? Not completely sure about that.

Carrington was a gent and an exceptionally honourable man but he was never PM and there may be reasons for that.

I also think that the underlying principles of Ministerial responsibility are archaic and anachronistic. It reflected a time when governments made far fewer decision and those decisions were indeed made by Ministers. In the modern world many, many decisions are in fact made by civil servants and they should be held accountable for them. Many are also made by executive agencies with minimal Ministerial involvement.

Of course leaders should support their staff doing their jobs. But the example of Boris here shows the limitations of the principle. I don't think anyone, certainly not Boris, ever argued that Darroch did anything wrong. I don't think anyone, certainly not Boris suggested that the blame lay with anyone but the leaker who will hopefully go to jail. But Boris was being asked to confirm that a man who Trump would not speak to (or allow his administration to speak to) should continue as our Ambassador. Despite the irritation caused by Trump's rudeness, bullying and irrationality that would be a pretty strange call as Darroch himself recognised.

In short, and somewhat unusually, I almost totally disagree with @Cyclefree. Gulp.

Your first sentence is bizarre since I don’t say that.

Re Darroch, what Boris should have done is support in public and stood up to Trump. If Trump wanted formally to declare the British Ambassador persona non grata, he should have been forced to do that not get his way through bitchy tweeting and his friends abroad hanging an honourable civil servant out to dry.

I disagree that Ministerial accountability is outdated and archaic. It is the political equivalent of Senior Manager responsibility in the world of finance. It does not absolve civil servants of their individual responsibilities. But those in positions of leadership need to take responsibility for what happens on their watch.

I see no evidence that Johnson understands this. IMO it is a severe failing in someone who wants to be a leader.

Trump did make Darroch persona non grata. He did it via bitchy tweeting but he did it either way.

FrancisUrquhart

Twitter is back up....so the cult member can get back to accusing all the whistle-blowers of being part of a zionist plot to bring down the messiah, while also claiming there is absolutely no issue with antisemitism in the Labour Party....

rottenborough

Sunil_Prasannan said:

PB is my Twitter

#MikesHolidayPlans

Philip_Thompson

Cyclefree said:

algarkirk said:

Excellent. Thank you. Right in almost every particular except that the penultimate paragraph could properly have read

"One policy, Remain, is seen as so important that virtually anything is acceptable to achieve it. That this undermines the outcome of a referendum the very same parliamentarians agreed to is seen as irrelevant".

The reason we are in this mess now is because a sane compromise was rejected by parliament. In the circumstances is it surprising that people are misguidedly tempted to treat it with contempt and that the door is opened to people less good and decent than Mrs May?

Some politicians are seeking to stop a No Deal exit. Who is carrying out Parliamentary manoeuvres to force Britain to Remain?

Dominic Grieve, Phillip Lee, Sarah Wollaston and all the other MPs who claim to be against No Deal exit while simultaneously voting against the only Deal the EU say they will negotiate.

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/1149406862070157313

rottenborough

Barnesian said:

rottenborough said:

AndyJS said:

rottenborough said:

Twitter having problems tonight.

That's funny: a couple of days ago I said it ought to be closed down for a while.

Indeed you did.

Coincidence?

I wonder who has turned Twitter off? If it has been arranged by the folk around Trump to prevent him creating a calamity, it would have been easier to have hidden his phone.

Best not to jump to conclusions.

geoffw

It's either twitter outrage or twitter outage.

FrancisUrquhart

What can one say....

A furious French celebrity chef has slammed the Michelin Guide for stripping his restaurant of a star after accusing him of using English Cheddar in his prized Alpine cheese soufflé.

Marc Veyrat, 69, is so angry about the demotion that he has now asked that his restaurant La Maison des Bois, which overlooks Mont Blanc, is removed from the hugely prestigious publication altogether.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7238285/Angry-French-chef-loses-Michelin-star-accused-using-Cheddar-Alpine-souffl.html

Cyclefree

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

So being a good leader means, err, not being the leader? Not completely sure about that.

Carrington was a gent and an exceptionally honourable man but he was never PM and there may be reasons for that.

I also think that the underlying principles of Ministerial responsibility are archaic and anachronistic. It reflected a time when governments made far fewer decision and those decisions were indeed made by Ministers. In the modern world many, many decisions are in fact made by civil servants and they should be held accountable for them. Many are also made by executive agencies with minimal Ministerial involvement.

Of course leaders should support their staff doing their jobs. But the example of Boris here shows the limitations of the principle. I don't think anyone, certainly not Boris, ever argued that Darroch did anything wrong. I don't think anyone, certainly not Boris suggested that the blame lay with anyone but the leaker who will hopefully go to jail. But Boris was being asked to confirm that a man who Trump would not speak to (or allow his administration to speak to) should continue as our Ambassador. Despite the irritation caused by Trump's rudeness, bullying and irrationality that would be a pretty strange call as Darroch himself recognised.

In short, and somewhat unusually, I almost totally disagree with @Cyclefree. Gulp.

Your first sentence is bizarre since I don’t say that.

Re Darroch, what Boris should have done is support in public and stood up to Trump. If Trump wanted formally to declare the British Ambassador persona non grata, he should have been forced to do that not get his way through bitchy tweeting and his friends abroad hanging an honourable civil servant out to dry.

I disagree that Ministerial accountability is outdated and archaic. It is the political equivalent of Senior Manager responsibility in the world of finance. It does not absolve civil servants of their individual responsibilities. But those in positions of leadership need to take responsibility for what happens on their watch.

I see no evidence that Johnson understands this. IMO it is a severe failing in someone who wants to be a leader.

Trump did make Darroch persona non grata. He did it via bitchy tweeting but he did it either way.

He should have been made to do it formally. De jure. Not just de facto. He should have been made to say that barely weeks after a successful state visit, successful in part because of the Ambassador’s efforts, he wanted to have the most serious diplomatic rupture with Britain. That might have given him pause. And it would have preserved a smidgeon of our self-respect as a nation.

geoffw

FrancisUrquhart said:

What can one say....

A furious French celebrity chef has slammed the Michelin Guide for stripping his restaurant of a star after accusing him of using English Cheddar in his prized Alpine cheese soufflé.

Marc Veyrat, 69, is so angry about the demotion that he has now asked that his restaurant La Maison des Bois, which overlooks Mont Blanc, is removed from the hugely prestigious publication altogether.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7238285/Angry-French-chef-loses-Michelin-star-accused-using-Cheddar-Alpine-souffl.html

The Michelin Guide as an NTB. Quel choc!

Cyclefree

Nigelb said:

You are a better person, and better writer than most of us here, Cyclefree.

Gosh. What a very lovely thing to say. **blushing** Thank you

But there are lots of lovely people on PB and good writers.

And I am no exemplar; I have the usual gamut of faults. My insanely rigid views on Italian food and drink, for instance......

Nigelb

FrancisUrquhart said:

What can one say....

A furious French celebrity chef has slammed the Michelin Guide for stripping his restaurant of a star after accusing him of using English Cheddar in his prized Alpine cheese soufflé.

Marc Veyrat, 69, is so angry about the demotion that he has now asked that his restaurant La Maison des Bois, which overlooks Mont Blanc, is removed from the hugely prestigious publication altogether.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7238285/Angry-French-chef-loses-Michelin-star-accused-using-Cheddar-Alpine-souffl.html

Chauvinism is, after all, a French invention.

Philip_Thompson

Cyclefree said:

He should have been made to do it formally. De jure. Not just de facto. He should have been made to say that barely weeks after a successful state visit, successful in part because of the Ambassador’s efforts, he wanted to have the most serious diplomatic rupture with Britain. That might have given him pause. And it would have preserved a smidgeon of our self-respect as a nation.

He already did it de jure. He withdrew Darroch's invitation to US events.

I'm not sure how escalating a division makes anything better, especially when Darroch was retiring anyway.

Nigelb

Cyclefree said:

Nigelb said:

You are a better person, and better writer than most of us here, Cyclefree.

Gosh. What a very lovely thing to say. **blushing** Thank you

But there are lots of lovely people on PB and good writers.

And I am no exemplar; I have the usual gamut of faults. My insanely rigid views on Italian food and drink, for instance......

And I thought I was damning with faint praise...

JackW

FrancisUrquhart said:

What can one say....

A furious French celebrity chef has slammed the Michelin Guide for stripping his restaurant of a star after accusing him of using English Cheddar in his prized Alpine cheese soufflé.

Marc Veyrat, 69, is so angry about the demotion that he has now asked that his restaurant La Maison des Bois, which overlooks Mont Blanc, is removed from the hugely prestigious publication altogether.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7238285/Angry-French-chef-loses-Michelin-star-accused-using-Cheddar-Alpine-souffl.html

Is he taking the rise ?!? .....

Sunil_Prasannan

Nice article by the way, Cyclefree

williamglenn

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1149405901868150784?s=21

ExiledInScotland

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1149405901868150784?s=21

Well HMS Queen Elizabeth does seem to be available

rcs1000

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

So being a good leader means, err, not being the leader? Not completely sure about that.

Carrington was a gent and an exceptionally honourable man but he was never PM and there may be reasons for that.

I also think that the underlying principles of Ministerial responsibility are archaic and anachronistic. It reflected a time when governments made far fewer decision and those decisions were indeed made by Ministers. In the modern world many, many decisions are in fact made by civil servants and they should be held accountable for them. Many are also made by executive agencies with minimal Ministerial involvement.

Of course leaders should support their staff doing their jobs. But the example of Boris here shows the limitations of the principle. I don't think anyone, certainly not Boris, ever argued that Darroch did anything wrong. I don't think anyone, certainly not Boris suggested that the blame lay with anyone but the leaker who will hopefully go to jail. But Boris was being asked to confirm that a man who Trump would not speak to (or allow his administration to speak to) should continue as our Ambassador. Despite the irritation caused by Trump's rudeness, bullying and irrationality that would be a pretty strange call as Darroch himself recognised.

In short, and somewhat unusually, I almost totally disagree with @Cyclefree. Gulp.

Your first sentence is bizarre since I don’t say that.

Re Darroch, what Boris should have done is support in public and stood up to Trump. If Trump wanted formally to declare the British Ambassador persona non grata, he should have been forced to do that not get his way through bitchy tweeting and his friends abroad hanging an honourable civil servant out to dry.

I disagree that Ministerial accountability is outdated and archaic. It is the political equivalent of Senior Manager responsibility in the world of finance. It does not absolve civil servants of their individual responsibilities. But those in positions of leadership need to take responsibility for what happens on their watch.

I see no evidence that Johnson understands this. IMO it is a severe failing in someone who wants to be a leader.

Trump did make Darroch persona non grata. He did it via bitchy tweeting but he did it either way.

PNG is a very specific dimplomatic term, and Trump did not make Darroch an official PNG.

Cyclefree

Nigelb said:

Cyclefree said:

Nigelb said:

You are a better person, and better writer than most of us here, Cyclefree.

Gosh. What a very lovely thing to say. **blushing** Thank you

But there are lots of lovely people on PB and good writers.

And I am no exemplar; I have the usual gamut of faults. My insanely rigid views on Italian food and drink, for instance......

And I thought I was damning with faint praise...

After a career guaranteed to make me unpopular with bankers and traders everywhere (one even called me “The Angel of Death”) I have learnt to take even the faintest of compliments as if they were exquisite jewels in a Tiffany box.

rcs1000

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

algarkirk said:

Excellent. Thank you. Right in almost every particular except that the penultimate paragraph could properly have read

"One policy, Remain, is seen as so important that virtually anything is acceptable to achieve it. That this undermines the outcome of a referendum the very same parliamentarians agreed to is seen as irrelevant".

The reason we are in this mess now is because a sane compromise was rejected by parliament. In the circumstances is it surprising that people are misguidedly tempted to treat it with contempt and that the door is opened to people less good and decent than Mrs May?

Some politicians are seeking to stop a No Deal exit. Who is carrying out Parliamentary manoeuvres to force Britain to Remain?

Dominic Grieve, Phillip Lee, Sarah Wollaston and all the other MPs who claim to be against No Deal exit while simultaneously voting against the only Deal the EU say they will negotiate.

While that's obviously true of Dominic Grieve, hasn't Sarah Wollaston become an official referendum denier now? (As in, she's publicly in favour of Remain.)

Chris

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1149405901868150784?s=21

Well, at least he's not going to ask Trump ...

Philip_Thompson

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

algarkirk said:

Excellent. Thank you. Right in almost every particular except that the penultimate paragraph could properly have read

"One policy, Remain, is seen as so important that virtually anything is acceptable to achieve it. That this undermines the outcome of a referendum the very same parliamentarians agreed to is seen as irrelevant".

The reason we are in this mess now is because a sane compromise was rejected by parliament. In the circumstances is it surprising that people are misguidedly tempted to treat it with contempt and that the door is opened to people less good and decent than Mrs May?

Some politicians are seeking to stop a No Deal exit. Who is carrying out Parliamentary manoeuvres to force Britain to Remain?

Dominic Grieve, Phillip Lee, Sarah Wollaston and all the other MPs who claim to be against No Deal exit while simultaneously voting against the only Deal the EU say they will negotiate.

While that's obviously true of Dominic Grieve, hasn't Sarah Wollaston become an official referendum denier now? (As in, she's publicly in favour of Remain.)

That was the question: "Who is carrying out Parliamentary manoeuvres to force Britain to Remain?"

rcs1000

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/1149406862070157313

There's a good list of the attendees here: https://slate.com/technology/2019/07/trump-social-media-summit-attendees.html?via=homepage_taps_top

As an aside, did anyone see the event against deplatforming? I watched some of it on YouTube, and one of the guys on it was complaining about having been deplaformed from Tinder. (He was kicked off because women complained to Tinder he was a creep after dates)

Nigelb

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1149405901868150784?s=21

She’s far too polite to express the opinion that it’s not a price worth paying.

Sunil_Prasannan

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

So being a good leader means, err, not being the leader? Not completely sure about that.

Carrington was a gent and an exceptionally honourable man but he was never PM and there may be reasons for that.

I also think that the underlying principles of Ministerial responsibility are archaic and anachronistic. It reflected a time when governments made far fewer decision and those decisions were indeed made by Ministers. In the modern world many, many decisions are in fact made by civil servants and they should be held accountable for them. Many are also made by executive agencies with minimal Ministerial involvement.

Of course leaders should support their staff doing their jobs. But the example of Boris here shows the limitations of the principle. I don't think anyone, certainly not Boris, ever argued that Darroch did anything wrong. I don't think anyone, certainly not Boris suggested that the blame lay with anyone but the leaker who will hopefully go to jail. But Boris was being asked to confirm that a man who Trump would not speak to (or allow his administration to speak to) should continue as our Ambassador. Despite the irritation caused by Trump's rudeness, bullying and irrationality that would be a pretty strange call as Darroch himself recognised.

In short, and somewhat unusually, I almost totally disagree with @Cyclefree. Gulp.

Your first sentence is bizarre since I don’t say that.

Re Darroch, what Boris should have done is support in public and stood up to Trump. If Trump wanted formally to declare the British Ambassador persona non grata, he should have been forced to do that not get his way through bitchy tweeting and his friends abroad hanging an honourable civil servant out to dry.

I disagree that Ministerial accountability is outdated and archaic. It is the political equivalent of Senior Manager responsibility in the world of finance. It does not absolve civil servants of their individual responsibilities. But those in positions of leadership need to take responsibility for what happens on their watch.

I see no evidence that Johnson understands this. IMO it is a severe failing in someone who wants to be a leader.

Trump did make Darroch persona non grata. He did it via bitchy tweeting but he did it either way.

PNG is a very specific dimplomatic term, and Trump did not make Darroch an official PNG.

Someone on here last week said there was a cultural gulf between PNG and Australia, but the Queen is head of State of both

Philip_Thompson

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

So being a good leader means, err, not being the leader? Not completely sure about that.

Carrington was a gent and an exceptionally honourable man but he was never PM and there may be reasons for that.

I also think that the underlying principles of Ministerial responsibility are archaic and anachronistic. It reflected a time when governments made far fewer decision and those decisions were indeed made by Ministers. In the modern world many, many decisions are in fact made by civil servants and they should be held accountable for them. Many are also made by executive agencies with minimal Ministerial involvement.

Of course leaders should support their staff doing their jobs. But the example of Boris here shows the limitations of the principle. I don't think anyone, certainly not Boris, ever argued that Darroch did anything wrong. I don't think anyone, certainly not Boris suggested that the blame lay with anyone but the leaker who will hopefully go to jail. But Boris was being asked to confirm that a man who Trump would not speak to (or allow his administration to speak to) should continue as our Ambassador. Despite the irritation caused by Trump's rudeness, bullying and irrationality that would be a pretty strange call as Darroch himself recognised.

In short, and somewhat unusually, I almost totally disagree with @Cyclefree. Gulp.

Your first sentence is bizarre since I don’t say that.

Re Darroch, what Boris should have done is support in public and stood up to Trump. If Trump wanted formally to declare the British Ambassador persona non grata, he should have been forced to do that not get his way through bitchy tweeting and his friends abroad hanging an honourable civil servant out to dry.

I disagree that Ministerial accountability is outdated and archaic. It is the political equivalent of Senior Manager responsibility in the world of finance. It does not absolve civil servants of their individual responsibilities. But those in positions of leadership need to take responsibility for what happens on their watch.

I see no evidence that Johnson understands this. IMO it is a severe failing in someone who wants to be a leader.

Trump did make Darroch persona non grata. He did it via bitchy tweeting but he did it either way.

PNG is a very specific dimplomatic term, and Trump did not make Darroch an official PNG.

He didn't need to officially make him PNG in order to stop him fulfilling his role to the best of his abilities.

Philip_Thompson

Sunil_Prasannan said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

So being a good leader means, err, not being the leader? Not completely sure about that.

Carrington was a gent and an exceptionally honourable man but he was never PM and there may be reasons for that.

I also think that the underlying principles of Ministerial responsibility are archaic and anachronistic. It reflected a time when governments made far fewer decision and those decisions were indeed made by Ministers. In the modern world many, many decisions are in fact made by civil servants and they should be held accountable for them. Many are also made by executive agencies with minimal Ministerial involvement.

Of course leaders should support their staff doing their jobs. But the example of Boris here shows the limitations of the principle. I don't think anyone, certainly not Boris, ever argued that Darroch did anything wrong. I don't think anyone, certainly not Boris suggested that the blame lay with anyone but the leaker who will hopefully go to jail. But Boris was being asked to confirm that a man who Trump would not speak to (or allow his administration to speak to) should continue as our Ambassador. Despite the irritation caused by Trump's rudeness, bullying and irrationality that would be a pretty strange call as Darroch himself recognised.

In short, and somewhat unusually, I almost totally disagree with @Cyclefree. Gulp.

Your first sentence is bizarre since I don’t say that.

Re Darroch, what Boris should have done is support in public and stood up to Trump. If Trump wanted formally to declare the British Ambassador persona non grata, he should have been forced to do that not get his way through bitchy tweeting and his friends abroad hanging an honourable civil servant out to dry.

I disagree that Ministerial accountability is outdated and archaic. It is the political equivalent of Senior Manager responsibility in the world of finance. It does not absolve civil servants of their individual responsibilities. But those in positions of leadership need to take responsibility for what happens on their watch.

I see no evidence that Johnson understands this. IMO it is a severe failing in someone who wants to be a leader.

Trump did make Darroch persona non grata. He did it via bitchy tweeting but he did it either way.

PNG is a very specific dimplomatic term, and Trump did not make Darroch an official PNG.

Someone on here last week said there was a cultural gulf between PNG and Australia, but the Queen is head of State of both

It was me that said Australia is closer culturally to the UK than it is to PNG.

FrancisUrquhart

rcs1000 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/1149406862070157313

There's a good list of the attendees here: https://slate.com/technology/2019/07/trump-social-media-summit-attendees.html?via=homepage_taps_top

As an aside, did anyone see the event against deplatforming? I watched some of it on YouTube, and one of the guys on it was complaining about having been deplaformed from Tinder. (He was kicked off because women complained to Tinder he was a creep after dates)

@CarpeDonktum
“CarpeDonktum” is the pseudonym of a stay-at-home dad in his mid-30s who has a Twitter account with 123,000 followers dedicated to pro-Trump memes.

Sounds like a certain Corbyn Cultist from Swindon....

Streeter

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1149405901868150784?s=21

Meanwhile schools don’t have enough money to teach children five days a week. Sickening.

The_Taxman

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1149405901868150784?s=21

I should imagine the Queen is past wanting one of those! It actually worries me about Johnsons judgement to even contemplate such a move. By the time it would be finished she probably will not be with us....

FrancisUrquhart

The_Taxman said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1149405901868150784?s=21

I should imagine the Queen is past wanting one of those! It actually worries me about Johnsons judgement to even contemplate such a move. By the time it would be finished she probably will not be with us....

Will Prince Philip be allowed to drive it?

justin124

stodge said:

Evening all

For me, there's a wider and deeper issue. The primary duty of the Government of any day (and the civil service which implements policy) should be the welfare of the nation and ensuring the people are kept as safe and secure as possible and things like the administration of law and distribution of food happen as they should.

The problem comes when there is incontrovertible and irrefutable evidence that particular policies, even if endorsed by the democratic will of the country, will adversely affect the country. Is it therefore the Government or the civil service's duty to protect us from ourselves or is the democratic will supreme in all instances even if the result of that is or would be detrimental to large sections of the populace?

As a civil servant, is your primary duty to serve the Government of the day whatever the consequences or is there a deeper duty to ensure the overall safety of the country and its citizens and to therefore seek to frustrate or mitigate Government policy, even if that is endorsed by the will of the people, where said policy is clearly disadvantageous to the country and its people?

In reality , very few policy options boil down to being 'incontrovertible and irrefutable'. Were it otherwise , there would be no need to make a choice. Objectively there is no such thing as 'the national interest' in that it is always a matter of opinion and judgement - and applies to decisions taken by both politicians and civil servants.

FrancisUrquhart

https://twitter.com/theresa_may/status/1149355428708573185
Well that's jinxed it....

AndyJS

"Tommy Robinson supporters bring chaos to London as they march on Parliament after far-right activist is jailed for contempt of court"

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tommy-robinson-supporters-set-off-on-march-towards-parliament-after-farright-activist-is-jailed-a4187836.html

The_Taxman

FrancisUrquhart said:

The_Taxman said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1149405901868150784?s=21

I should imagine the Queen is past wanting one of those! It actually worries me about Johnsons judgement to even contemplate such a move. By the time it would be finished she probably will not be with us....

Will Prince Philip be allowed to drive it?

I should think an ice breaker would be better if he is involved!

Cyclefree

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

He should have been made to do it formally. De jure. Not just de facto. He should have been made to say that barely weeks after a successful state visit, successful in part because of the Ambassador’s efforts, he wanted to have the most serious diplomatic rupture with Britain. That might have given him pause. And it would have preserved a smidgeon of our self-respect as a nation.

He already did it de jure. He withdrew Darroch's invitation to US events.

I'm not sure how escalating a division makes anything better, especially when Darroch was retiring anyway.

I assume there are conventions about these things. Perhaps the US Ambassador here could have been called in and asked to confirm whether the US President really did seek a diplomatic rupture with Britain. Because if so then naturally there would be consequences for all sorts of levels of co-operation etc.

We should not have behaved like an abused wife in a coercive relationship. We should not have apologised for what the Ambassador said. We should have defended his right to give frank advice and views in private, pointed to the leak inquiry which was taking place on both sides of the Atlantic and stated that it was for the British government alone to decide on it envoys abroad.

And then tried to resolve in private.

Darroch has more class and dignity than the numpties around him. I fear the leak inquiry will go nowhere. I have my dark suspicions.

matt

H

The_Taxman said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1149405901868150784?s=21

I should imagine the Queen is past wanting one of those! It actually worries me about Johnsons judgement to even contemplate such a move. By the time it would be finished she probably will not be with us....

On that I disagree. It’s sensible politics. Offering the illusion of choice while knowing the answer. Johnson can be criticised for many things but on its face it’s a pragmatic answer.

Sunil_Prasannan

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

So being a good leader means, err, not being the leader? Not completely sure about that.

Carrington was a gent and an exceptionally honourable man but he was never PM and there may be reasons for that.

I also think that the underlying principles of Ministerial responsibility are archaic and anachronistic. It reflected a time when governments made far fewer decision and those decisions were indeed made by Ministers. In the modern world many, many decisions are in fact made by civil servants and they should be held accountable for them. Many are also made by executive agencies with minimal Ministerial involvement.

Of course leaders should support their staff doing their jobs. But the example of Boris here shows the limitations of the principle. I don't think anyone, certainly not Boris, ever argued that Darroch did anything wrong. I don't think anyone, certainly not Boris suggested that the blame lay with anyone but the leaker who will hopefully go to jail. But Boris was being asked to confirm that a man who Trump would not speak to (or allow his administration to speak to) should continue as our Ambassador. Despite the irritation caused by Trump's rudeness, bullying and irrationality that would be a pretty strange call as Darroch himself recognised.

In short, and somewhat unusually, I almost totally disagree with @Cyclefree. Gulp.

Your first sentence is bizarre since I don’t say that.

Re Darroch, what Boris should have done is support in public and stood up to Trump. If Trump wanted formally to declare the British Ambassador persona non grata, he should have been forced to do that not get his way through bitchy tweeting and his friends abroad hanging an honourable civil servant out to dry.

I disagree that Ministerial accountability is outdated and archaic. It is the political equivalent of Senior Manager responsibility in the world of finance. It does not absolve civil servants of their individual responsibilities. But those in positions of leadership need to take responsibility for what happens on their watch.

I see no evidence that Johnson understands this. IMO it is a severe failing in someone who wants to be a leader.

Trump did make Darroch persona non grata. He did it via bitchy tweeting but he did it either way.

PNG is a very specific dimplomatic term, and Trump did not make Darroch an official PNG.

Someone on here last week said there was a cultural gulf between PNG and Australia, but the Queen is head of State of both

It was me that said Australia is closer culturally to the UK than it is to PNG.

And yet HMQ is Queen of all three!

The_Taxman

AndyJS said:

"Tommy Robinson supporters bring chaos to London as they march on Parliament after far-right activist is jailed for contempt of court"

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tommy-robinson-supporters-set-off-on-march-towards-parliament-after-farright-activist-is-jailed-a4187836.html

I cannot understand the appeal of that individual. Talk about a marginal figure!

Sunil_Prasannan

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1149405901868150784?s=21

Aren't we spending that on the NHS??

Foxy

Gallowgate said:

In a vaguely betting related post: the atmosphere around Newcastle United has become so unbelievably toxic that I think betting on us to be relegated this season is basically free money. The absolute state of the club.

It does look grim, and not having a manager with only a few weeks to go to the end of the transfer window is really tough on the toon. Leicester haven't helped by poaching your best player.

Foxes looking pretty good with the 3 signings, perhaps could do with another forward, but mostly we need to.shift some surplus players. We have good cover now so safe to make a profit on Maguire. I am pretty optimistic for the season.

rcs1000

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

algarkirk said:

Excellent. Thank you. Right in almost every particular except that the penultimate paragraph could properly have read

"One policy, Remain, is seen as so important that virtually anything is acceptable to achieve it. That this undermines the outcome of a referendum the very same parliamentarians agreed to is seen as irrelevant".

The reason we are in this mess now is because a sane compromise was rejected by parliament. In the circumstances is it surprising that people are misguidedly tempted to treat it with contempt and that the door is opened to people less good and decent than Mrs May?

Some politicians are seeking to stop a No Deal exit. Who is carrying out Parliamentary manoeuvres to force Britain to Remain?

Dominic Grieve, Phillip Lee, Sarah Wollaston and all the other MPs who claim to be against No Deal exit while simultaneously voting against the only Deal the EU say they will negotiate.

While that's obviously true of Dominic Grieve, hasn't Sarah Wollaston become an official referendum denier now? (As in, she's publicly in favour of Remain.)

That was the question: "Who is carrying out Parliamentary manoeuvres to force Britain to Remain?"

But you wrote "who claim to be against No Deal exit while simultaneously voting against the only Deal the EU say they will negotiate".

As I said, that's obviously true of Grieve. (And unicorn believers.) It's a good description of people who claim they want to Leave, but sadly this deal (like any concievable deal) isn't good enough.

But I don't think that's true of Wollaston (now), in that she's not pretending anything. She's pretty explicit about wanting to Remain.

Sunil_Prasannan

ExiledInScotland said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1149405901868150784?s=21

Well HMS Queen Elizabeth does seem to be available

Or maybe not:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-48947455
A leak which forced the HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier to return to port saw water rise "neck-high" in flooded areas, the BBC has been told.

Floater

Jezbollah

https://order-order.com/2019/07/11/corbyn-anti-semitism-criticism-doesnt-bother-frankly-dont-care/

Theuniondivvie

ExiledInScotland said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1149405901868150784?s=21

Well HMS Queen Elizabeth does seem to be available

Leakier than the FO.

"HMS Queen Elizabeth: Water leak on aircraft carrier 'neck-high'"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-48947455

FrancisUrquhart

Floater said:

Jezbollah

https://order-order.com/2019/07/11/corbyn-anti-semitism-criticism-doesnt-bother-frankly-dont-care/

Trumpian....its the deep state trying to stop us...

Zephyr

matt said:

H

The_Taxman said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1149405901868150784?s=21

I should imagine the Queen is past wanting one of those! It actually worries me about Johnsons judgement to even contemplate such a move. By the time it would be finished she probably will not be with us....

On that I disagree. It’s sensible politics. Offering the illusion of choice while knowing the answer. Johnson can be criticised for many things but on its face it’s a pragmatic answer.

Would her grandson say yes? If it was broached as an option not necessity

Cyclefree

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1149405901868150784?s=21

What an utterly stupid and tin-eared suggestion. Apart from anything else HMQ does not travel abroad anymore and is well able to hire (or even buy) a boat if she wants to sail round Scotland.

I am also pretty annoyed with £2.5 million of our money being spent on Harry and Meghan’s new home while they act all hoity toity with us. If they want a private life fine but don't bloody well expect us to pay for it.

RobD

Cyclefree said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1149405901868150784?s=21

What an utterly stupid and tin-eared suggestion. Apart from anything else HMQ does not travel abroad anymore and is well able to hire (or even buy) a boat if she wants to sail round Scotland.

I am also pretty annoyed with £2.5 million of our money being spent on Harry and Meghan’s new home while they act all hoity toity with us. If they want a private life fine but don't bloody well expect us to pay for it.

So the answer will be "no", I assume? Probably the reason why he said he'd ask.

not_on_fire

Cyclefree said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1149405901868150784?s=21

What an utterly stupid and tin-eared suggestion. Apart from anything else HMQ does not travel abroad anymore and is well able to hire (or even buy) a boat if she wants to sail round Scotland.

I am also pretty annoyed with £2.5 million of our money being spent on Harry and Meghan’s new home while they act all hoity toity with us. If they want a private life fine but don't bloody well expect us to pay for it.

Well presumably the yacht would be used by HMQ’s successors as well.

Richard_Nabavi

As others have said, another great article by @Cyclefree. It baffles me that the two big parties aren't bidding against each other to hire her as an independent, firm, and indomitable, but fair, investigator of allegations of racism in their organisations.

On a related point, this is rather good:

Yet ask Johnson’s small band of more sophisticated no-dealers, and a different justification begins to emerge. It lies in the theories of creative disruption espoused by the postwar economist Joseph Schumpeter and his followers. To them, occasional bouts of chaos are necessary. As during wars, recessions and Thatcherism, Britain needs a therapeutic shock to jolt it into a new karma, a new inner greatness.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/11/boris-johnson-chaos-no-deal-brexit-britain